What the New York Times would have you believe:
From their editorial
endorsing Hillary Clinton for the Democratic primary: (emp add)
- Hillary Clinton is "brilliant"
- John Edwards can not hold back the tide of globalization
- The idea of the first woman nominee is "exhilarating"
[How "exhilarating" is it that we have the first black woman as Secretary of State?]The Times is "hugely impressed by the depth of [Hillary's] knowledge, by the force of her intellect""Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing."
[The Times does not cite any successes.]Hillary "has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings" on health care."Her ideas ... and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable"
Brilliant? Not really. (E.g. She doesn't know the definition of the word "congenital".)
Hillary Clinton is hard-core DLC
, which is avowedly non-populist. So if she becomes president, expect to hear that globalization cannot be stopped and that the way to deal with it is to get several post-graduate degrees, in order to be more competitive with call-centers, factories, and software firms overseas that pay $3 an hour.
Not to defend Clinton, but there were no significant players left out of the discussions leading to Hillarycare. The insurers and HMOs were there. They simply decided after the fact that it would be more profitable to run the Harry and Louise ads than to agree with the program they helped negotiate.